Dear Richard,

Having read the last three or four issues of REPEAT pretty much cover to cover, there's something that has been bugging the shit out of me more and more as each new issue appears. Whatever people may have felt about Monkeyboy's comments on Zines in REPEAT 13, at least it got people talking (even if was only to comment on what a wanker he must be). While I largely disagreed with his sentiments (I, for one, quite like reading about teenage girls getting drunk…) the subject broached was an interesting one - that of the review.

What Monkeyboy failed to grasp was that a zine is much like a youth to a parent or peer, in this case the most obvious example being NME. While many zines begin in direct opposition to muck like Melody Maker, people brought up on a diet of it are obviously going to fall into the same traps and why? Because the slagging off of their favourite bands/scene is often the precise reason they started the zine in the first place.

Certain bands and scenes (garage punk, goth, the manics for a while) are either ignored or ridiculed by the 'inkies', meaning someone somewhere has to get off their arse and do something about it. Is it any great surprise that these organs of the underground then set about custard pieing the big boys or, to go back to the peer analogy, rebelling against their parents? When viewed in this way, it's only natural.

If I had the misfortune to review the latest spew from the corporate sack of Ocean Colour Scene, I'd give it the slagging it would richly deserve, unless of course it was miraculously any good. Do you really think that the thirty people that buy some little zine want to hear the top 10 getting rave reviews? Thought not. Catering to your audience isn't such a hard concept to grasp, is it? If a fanzine is shit then say so but say why, and suggest possible improvements. If you can't do that you are effectively as bad as them. I'm sure no one thinks their zine is perfect and the amount of zine writers that go onto (arguably) better things is phenomenal - they're a real music industry breeding ground. Constructive criticism is what the little darlings need. Just think, with Tom Id's looks I could be the next Danny Baker…

But this brings me on (at last) to my point. My bugbear is the opposite of Monkeyboy's - it's the fawning, sucky review. As I've just said, constructive criticism is what budding rock stars and journo's need and I seem to be seeing precious little in REPEAT. This wouldn't be a bad thing if there was some genuine venom to make up for it, but more and more the pages seem to be filled with tongues firmly placed up arseholes. Flicking through REPEAT's from 12 to 14, I didn't find a single bad word written about a local band, which is frankly mystifying. Even the CD and record reviews rarely put the boot in. What are you people doing - throwing the crap ones away? The public need to be warned about the shite that's out there.

If I'm honest, I'm partially to blame as I keep getting pissed and forgetting who I've seen, rendering reviewing gigs a tad on the tricky side (new years resolution sorted out there then).